vk_get_user_5184b90863d9

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly mentions authentication requirement, the absence of a typical request body, and parameter aliasing behavior. While it doesn't describe output format or error handling, it covers the most critical operational traits for a simple GET.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is four concise sentences with no filler. Each sentence provides distinct value: resource identification, raw endpoint mapping, body expectation, and parameter naming conventions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter GET with no output schema, the description covers all essential context: what it returns, the endpoint, authentication, and request body behavior. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly without additional assumptions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful but generic notes about top-level path/query parameters and camelCase/snake_case aliases, which would apply if parameters existed. No further parameter explanation is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool gets user information and specifically returns the current user object with settings, using the concrete verb-resource pairing 'Get user information' and the raw endpoint GET /user. This distinguishes it from other vk_get_user_* tools that might target different user resources.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context: it is a raw REST proxy for GET /user, does not usually require a request body, and requires authentication. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.